Abandon the Social Issues

 

A lot of Republicans, reeling from Tuesday’s smash-up, are suggesting just that: give up on abortion or gay marriage, focus on economics and jobs. There’s some evidence to support this strategy, but there’s also a lot that contradicts it.

A friend of mine, a Hollywood writer who wishes to remain anonymous, is a deeply conservative — and deeply depressed — Roman Catholic who lives in Los Angeles, is a hugely successful writer and producer (translation: he’s got a lot of Emmys) put it this way in an email exchange we had this morning, in which both of us tackled the “social issue” issue:

I have no great love of social issues. I would prefer to avoid them altogether. My fear is that’s less possible now that social issues are increasingly becoming public policy. It’s no longer okay to personally feel someway and avoid it in public debates because we pay for everything. A desire to not pay for something equals opposition.

That seems like an interesting fault-line, and one that our side has had trouble articulating clearly. It seems like even folks who are pro-abortion rights would agree that parental consent laws are necessary, and that no one should be forced to pay for a procedure they believe is infanticide. I mean, right? That should be an easy one for the American voter.

Or does Tuesday tell us the opposite?

Like this post? Want to comment? Join Ricochet’s growing community of conservatives and be part of the conversation. Get your first month free.

Members have made 130 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5
  1. Profile photo of Astonishing Inactive

    Abortion is morally reprehensible, wholly unnatural to our humanity–both inhuman and anti-human, both physically and psychologically repellent. It savagely kills innocent babies. It is a shameful stain on American society, as bad as slavery, a holocaust.

    Abortion brings into question the very possibility of the goodness of Western culture. If the practice goes unopposed, then the question about the possibility of the goodness of Western culture will have been answered with a “No.”

    If civilized humanity survives long enough, it will look back upon our slaughter of the innocent, and wonder with horror and disgust, “How could they?”

    There are other issues I care deeply about–other social issues, fundamental issues of governance, economic issues, foreign policy issues–but I simply can’t vote for a politician who approves abortion or who would allow government support for abortion.

    As a political matter, I agree with those who say the issue is one that should be decided within each state under our federal system.

    But as a moral matter, I will not support any politician–local, state, federal, national, or international–who supports abortion.

    (I’m not Catholic. I’m not even religious. I do believe in God.)

    • #1
    • November 11, 2012 at 1:27 am
  2. Profile photo of Leigh Member

    Here’s the problem with abandoning the social issues: the social issues are the root of the problem.

    If you abandon the social issues, you might win a few more elections but anything you do with them will be temporary, because you’re contributing to the downgrading of the culture. That doesn’t mean you don’t pick your battles — and your messaging! “Legitimate rape”, seriously! Republicans blew that one seriously this time around, and it bit them.

    Also, you have to look at the principles, the politics, and the polls on an issue-by-issue basis.

    Consider Great Britain. Someone with Paul Ryan’s position on abortion, for instance, would probably not be able to win there; but the evidence is that abandoning the social issues altogether hasn’t helped the Tories much.

    • #3
    • November 11, 2012 at 1:58 am
  3. Profile photo of Mel Foil Inactive

    I think the social conservatives (I consider myself one) can probably appreciate now that simply being allowed to opt out of the government policies that directly violate your religious conscience is a victory. Even that can no longer be taken for granted. It almost makes one appreciate Ron Paul. I guess that’s the other piece of the puzzle.

    • #4
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:02 am
  4. Profile photo of Christopher Esget Inactive

    The social issues and the future of our society go hand in hand. If we look at abortion and homosexual “marriage,” you’re dealing with the foundations of human life. To abandon the social issues is to concede defeat not just politically, but as the human race. It’s mass suicide. That’s hyperbolic, but not by much.

    As much as I want and need the economy to improve, what does it profit a society to gain the whole world and lose its soul?

    • #5
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:10 am
  5. Profile photo of Christopher Esget Inactive

    Well said. Why is it so hard to find someone who can articulate that?

    Todd:”and that no one should be forced to pay for a procedure they believe is infanticide”

    I was terribly frustrated with how the Obama campaign got away with convincing some voters that allowing employers to simply opt of out paying for contraception was somehow equivalent to supporting an outright ban on contraception.

    According to their logic, because my employer does not provide me with groceries, my employer is somehow denying me access to food.

    Seriously, how did they get away with that?

    So I agree, a good candidate should be able to communicate to voters that those who want to force taxpayers and employers to provide contraception and pay for abortions against their will are the ones who are being “anti-choice” and “intolerant”. · in 1 minute

    • #6
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:11 am
  6. Profile photo of Todd Member

    “and that no one should be forced to pay for a procedure they believe is infanticide”

    I was terribly frustrated with how the Obama campaign got away with convincing some voters that allowing employers to simply opt of out paying for contraception was somehow equivalent to supporting an outright ban on contraception.

    According to their logic, because my employer does not provide me with groceries, my employer is somehow denying me access to food.

    Seriously, how did they get away with that?

    So I agree, a good candidate should be able to communicate to voters that those who want to force taxpayers and employers to provide contraception and pay for abortions against their will are the ones who are being “anti-choice” and “intolerant”.

    • #7
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:11 am
  7. Profile photo of SMatthewStolte Member

    It’s hard for me to see good fruit coming from the question of whether to abandon social conservatism or not. It’s liable to make social conservatives defensive, and to make the Republican party pointless. 

    Now, maybe we could ask whether some pro-choicers should be welcomed into the Republican tent. Or whether the social conservative movement itself should undergo some sort of transformation. I think the latter is required, and the former should probably not be encouraged. 

    Here’s my guess on social conservatism: It will begin to win once it is able to go on the offensive. Social conservatives often frame their positions, and allow themselves to be framed, as backward-looking. 

    Let’s ‘reverse’ Roe v. Wade, ‘restore’ the American family, ‘restore’ civic life, and so on. 

    As long as they do this, they are going to seem destined to fail. Restoring the past isn’t just difficult. It is a metaphysical impossibility.

    Obama is able to take dead ideas and pass them off as forward-looking. Why can’t social conservatives do the same with their ideas?

    • #8
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:13 am
  8. Profile photo of NGage Inactive

    I share the sentiments of your LA friend exactly…and I find that line of thinking in regards to social issues typical among creatives on the right. (I know — I am one of them. Lonely!) And that’s just it. I’m generally happy to sit those arguments out, but when the debate has become framed in terms of “refusing to fund my birth control” becomes “you’re an anti-woman, puritanical nutjob that wants to ban contraception altogether,” how can I not be forced into this fight? Ugh. An expanding State always finds ways to create fresh, new divisiveness. Any creatives out there have any thoughts on this? (Or similarly-minded non-creatives, I guess?)

    • #9
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:14 am
  9. Profile photo of Christopher Esget Inactive
    SMatthewStolte: Now, maybe we could ask whether some pro-choicers should be welcomed into the Republican tent. 

    We’ve already done that. The pro-life crowd looked the other way and pretended to believe Mitt when he said he was pro-life, despite a great deal of evidence to the contrary. We have pro-abortion legislators, but you’ll find very few of those on the left.

    • #10
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:14 am
  10. Profile photo of KC Mulville Member

    Well, consider an argument like abortion.

    • Suppose we convince America that people shouldn’t be forced to pay for anyone else’s abortion. Government should stay out.
    • But if “government shouldn’t be involved” is the lesson you take from that, you’ll find it hard to turn around and say that government should intervene and prevent abortions in the first place.
    • “Should government be involved?” gets used by both sides.

    Moral questions require distinctions, often very delicate distinctions, but after Tuesday (and two years of campaigns that blurred distinctions as much as possible) it’s clear that too much of the American public isn’t interested in making distinctions.

    The media certainly doesn’t help. They want to have a moral shoot-out in an eight minute TV segment.

    People have been conditioned to skip over details and follow their feelings … does someone look presidential? Does someone look judgmental? Does this guy care about people like me? Such impressions are manipulated by advertisers, Hollywood, political consultants, pollsters – that’s what they do for a living.

    We have to make distinctions, and make them more clearly and definitively. That should be easy, but it won’t be.

    • #11
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:14 am
  11. Profile photo of Jonathan Matthew Gilbert Member

    I think our articulation of our views is what’s got to change. I’m not a fan of abortion, I certainly don’t want to pay for one or make anyone else, but I’m not going to stop a woman who has been raped (or a 12 year old girl who has been raped by her father) from having one…and I’m DEFINITELY not going to tell her that what happened to her is God’s will. We lose a lot of credibility on social issues when people like Akin and Mourdock open their mouths. And apparently we lose a lot of votes. Marriage is a state issue, and we should keep repeating that. Younger Republicans believe it is…and most of them support it, too, so sooner or later the Party is going to as well, but in the meantime let’s at least be consistent about how we feel. If it’s a state issue and a state legalizes it…then we need to support the people of that state doing what they consider to be for the best. 

    • #12
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:15 am
  12. Profile photo of Mendel Member

    Western Chauvinist pointed out yesterday in another social conservativism post that changing the social mores of America is a bottom-up, not a top-down task. I agree completely with that sentiment.

    But this raises the question, why should politics be involved at all in a process that cannot be fixed with top-down approaches? 

    The point about government paying for everything is well-taken, but there is an obvious strain of social conservatism (perhaps embodied by Rick Santorum?) that wants to go well beyond keeping the government out of subsidizing certain behaviors, to having the government punish many of those behaviors. 

    As long as this faction of the Republican coalition retains a loud voice in the debate, there is a large chunk of otherwise swing voters who will probably steer clear from the party.

    • #13
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:15 am
  13. Profile photo of Bereket Kelile Member

    The social conservative-bashing is predictable at this point. I’ve come to expect the scapegoating every time our side loses an election. 

    It reminds me of the film Charlie Wilson’s War. Wilson wants Joanne to shut up with the religious talk when he things are going well but then he hits a brick wall and finds that he needs her to work her Christian magic on the committee chairman to get the funding approved. 

    So my point is: yeah whine about us now but it won’t be long before you come back to us begging for help. We’ll be patiently waiting. 

    • #14
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:17 am
  14. Profile photo of Mendel Member
    Christopher Esget: The social issues and the future of our society go hand in hand. If we look at abortion and homosexual “marriage,” you’re dealing with the foundations of human life. To abandon the social issues is to concede defeat not just politically, but as the human race. It’s mass suicide. That’s hyperbolic, but not by much.

    As much as I want and need the economy to improve, what does it profit a society to gain the whole world and lose its soul? · 5 minutes ago

    But do you really think that laws and government can help an unwilling nation re-find its lost soul? Government seems the absolute last institution to fix that problem.

    • #15
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:17 am
  15. Profile photo of Flapjack Member

    Can’t we personally (and as groups) embrace social conservatism while preaching federalism on a national basis? I consider myself a social conservative, but it angers me that conservatives fall into the universalist trap that the Left advocates: my way for the whole nation. While I wish others would embrace social conservative views, federalism at least allows me the basis upon which to live and practice life among those who are like me without universalist intervention (i.e., by the federal government). Call me heartless, but I do not have the brain-space to fret about the social practices of liberal strongholds while universalism of their views threatens my way of life. Let them be where they are and fight for our own space.

    • #16
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:20 am
  16. Profile photo of Christopher Esget Inactive
    Mendel

    But do you really think that laws and government can help an unwilling nation re-find its lost soul? Government seems the absolute last institution to fix that problem. 

    That question is both easy and difficult to answer for me. On the one hand, you are quite right – fixing the cultural problem is a job for families, schools, and churches. On the other hand, it’s the job of government to protect the weak and vulnerable, and murdering the “inconvenient” child is madness, as is the homosexual lobby’s complete reorientation of the meaning of human sexuality. I see no way to divorce the state from marriage, or the protection of human life.

    • #17
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:22 am
  17. Profile photo of Joseph Stanko Member
    Pig Man: Social Conservatives can either keep their souls or win national elections. · 1 hour ago

    I, for one, would far rather lose an election than lose my soul.

    • #18
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:23 am
  18. Profile photo of Good Berean Member
    Rob Long:

    “I have no great love of social issues. I would prefer to avoid them altogether. My fear is that’s less possible now that social issues are increasingly becoming public policy. It’s no longer okay to personally feel someway and avoid it in public debates because we pay for everything. A desire to not pay for something equals opposition.”

    Just so. And this is a point of contention between conservatives and libertarians. One cannot separate ones values from ones property forced to be “contributed” for the “general welfare” by government coercion (i.e. taxes).

    The founding generation would have resisted the efforts on the part of government to use their tax dollars to pay for goods and services they believed to be immoral, even more than they resisted taxation without representation.

    They abhorred democracy as much as they abhorred monarchy or aristocracy. They abhorred tyranny and despotism in any form. Today we are ruled by the tyranny of the majority more than any time in history.

    • #19
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:23 am
  19. Profile photo of Western Chauvinist Member
    Flapjack: Can’t we personally (and as groups) embrace social conservatism while preaching federalism on a national basis? I consider myself a social conservative, but it angers me that conservatives fall into the universalist trap that the Left advocates: my way for the whole nation. While I wish others would embrace social conservative views, federalism at least allows me the basis upon which to live and practice life among those who are like me without universalist intervention (i.e., by the federal government). Call me heartless, but I do not have the brain-space to fret about the social practices of liberal strongholds while universalism of their views threatens my way of life. Let them be where they are and fight for our own space. · 1 minute ago

    There’s a strain of federalist utopianism out there. If we believe SSM isn’t going to fall under “equal protection” and even the universal progressive application of the commerce clause, we’re dreaming. The only space we’ll have carved out is in our individual homes, and the progressives are coming for that too!

    • #20
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:25 am
  20. Profile photo of The Mugwump Inactive

    The results of the election indicate, at least to me, that the left has won the culture war. That doesn’t mean that the survivors on our side need to surrender. How can I possibly surrender those things I believe are ordained by our Creator?

    I think we’re headed for a financial collapse that is the result of a moral failure. You will remember that when Rome collapsed circa AD 476, the light of civilization was preserved, however meagerly, in monastic retreats across Europe. What we need is a 21st century adaptation. I know that sounds a little bit crazy, but the plans are already being made.

    Understand that the way to fight a highly centralized, urbanized, vertically structured, super-state is to disperse, decentralize, and localize. That’s going to mean a lot of local initiatives as far away from the reach of big government as we can make them.

    We don’t want to be the Incas taking on the superior might of the Spanish Empire. We need to learn how to fight like Apaches. Those of you who saw the Whittle video know what I’m talking about. It starts tomorrow on the member feed.

    • #21
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:25 am
  21. Profile photo of Western Chauvinist Member

    Also, read more Ricochet, Rob.

    • #22
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:26 am
  22. Profile photo of Goldgeller Member

    Social issues have to continue to be embraced on both the political level and the personal level. There isn’t much a difference between social issues and economic issues except that the later shows up on a graph (but that doesn’t tell you much by itself about anything).

    Charles Murray’s “Coming Apart” shows us what happens when we tried to abandon the social issues– the people saying “abandon them” live by them and they are successful, and the people who listened aren’t as successful (and in some cases, doing worse). This is the same thing George Gilder shows in Wealth and Poverty– the people who embrace a work ethic and a family life improve themselves. Now I’m not trying to attack single people (I’m single myself!) but I’m not going to act as though a major part of the human experience can be ignored for the sake of a few votes. You abandon the social issues for a year and people say “well it’s private virtue that counts” and next year people forget how to even think about virtue. That’s the real danger. 

    • #23
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:26 am
  23. Profile photo of Sabrdance Member

    This is the one metaphoric “I told you so” I’m going to allow myself.

    Er… You’re just now figuring this out? Obamacare, gay marriage, Elaine Photography, Hosana Tabor, plus a few dozen pre-Obama incidents, and you’re just now figuring out that you can’t avoid fighting about Social Issues? 

    We just ran the least social-issues oriented Presidential Campaign I can remember (which, admittedly, is only back to 1992), and yet what was the campaign about according to the Democrats I know? War-on-Women, Binders of Women, Vote-your-ladyparts, contraception, legitimate rape, rape is God’s will, moochers and takers, and bigots of racial and sexual intolerance.

    And you are just now figuring out that we can’t avoid fighting over social issues?

     

    OK. That’s all I’m going to do. First, last, and only recrimination I’m allowing myself.

    • #24
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:27 am
  24. Profile photo of Percival Thatcher

    If I keep getting read out of the party, sooner or later I might take it personally.

    No, I’m not a social-issues only voter (far from it), but there are those who are. Plus, some of the “social” issues are the very things that are supposed to make some other constituencies more amenable to voting more conservatively.

    • #25
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:28 am
  25. Profile photo of Bereket Kelile Member

    These problems with the “social” issues (what issue isn’t social?) are like our problems with entitlements. It’s unsustainable in the long run but while certain conditions prevail then we can ignore dealing with them. Our society doesn’t have one culture anymore (if it ever did) and whatever consensus there used to be on moral issues is also being challenged. Before these moral problems were a “luxury” we could afford because it was contained but not so anymore. Now that the foundation has been undermined we have to come up with a new moral framework, if that can be done. 

    Immanuel Kant thought that he could find an unaided path to God and that it would have no impact on civilization because men still had a reverence for religious ideas-the starry hosts above and the moral law within. But what if men lose even that reverence? It raises some serious problems. 

    • #26
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:37 am
  26. Profile photo of She Member
    She

    Rob Long: It seems like even folks who are pro-abortion rights would agree that parental consent laws are necessary, and that no one should beforcedto pay for a procedure they believe is infanticide. I mean, right? That should be an easy one for the American voter.

    Or does Tuesday tell us the opposite?

    Umm, yes. I think it does. Not only Tuesday, but also what has happened over the last eighteen months, tells us the opposite. Believing that you should not be “forced to pay for a procedure [you] believe is infanticide” is apparently code for “obviously you’re evil and stupid, and, you hate women.” Obama ran on that, he ran it into the ground, and he won.

    I’m not sure it’s possible to have ‘cafeteria style’ taxes, wherein you pay only for the services you support. I think I agree with Jonathan Matthew Gilbert–1) Republicans need better articulation, and 2) send it back to the states and let the voters vote. Those who don’t like the outcome can live with it, or vote with their feet. One or the other sets of states will prosper, and the outcome will speak for itself.

    • #27
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:38 am
  27. Profile photo of Squishy Blue RINO Thatcher

    The GOP needs to dump the Iowa Caucuses once and for all.

    Make Ohio, hell even California or New York, first out of the gate, that will ratchet down the worst of the pandering to Social Conservatives that initiates, and thus defines, the whole GOP primary process.

    Wide Open Spaces is a great Dixie Chicks song, but it is a p___poor path to 270 electoral votes.

    • #28
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:40 am
  28. Profile photo of Eleanor Member
    Rob Long: 

    Or does Tuesday tell us the opposite? · · 40 minutes ago

    Tuesday tells us the opposite. On all of the issues. And in a basic way, all were social issues. If it is right to make others, on a large basis just pay because they have more, or blithely excuse lifelong lawbreakers, then, indeed Tuesday tells us the opposite. If the majority want it, that is it. 

    Sad and maddening. And we are now in retraining mode for a populace 50% lost. Or they for us, he-he.

    • #29
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:41 am
  29. Profile photo of Christopher Esget Inactive

    I’m not opposed to the basic idea of your proposal, but giving California or New York any say at all is folly, since they’re not going to vote GOP anyway. And it’s a fast track to losing the states that do vote for you.

    Squishy Blue RINO: The GOP needs to dump the Iowa Caucuses once and for all.

    Make Ohio, hell even California or New York, first out of the gate, that will ratchet down the worst of the pandering to Social Conservatives that initiates, and thus defines, the whole GOP primary process.

    Wide Open Spaces is a great Dixie Chicks song, but it is a p___poor path to 270 electoral votes. · 0 minutes ago

    • #30
    • November 11, 2012 at 2:43 am
  1. 1
  2. 2
  3. 3
  4. 4
  5. 5